Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Shredder wins in Graz after controversy -- rebuttal

Author: Bob Durrett

Date: 09:08:10 12/24/03

Go up one level in this thread


On December 23, 2003 at 23:12:28, Mike S. wrote:

>On December 23, 2003 at 11:46:52, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>
>>(...)
>
>>In the WCCC event, (1) and (2) are all that is needed.  Because (2) had been
>>done dozens of times in previous rounds when programs claimed a draw, using
>>the _same_ GUI, and those draw claims were upheld.  You can _not_ then go to
>>a later game in the same event and rule 180 degrees out of phase with your
>>previous ruling, just to justify a stupid mistake that was made.  Yet this
>>happened.  They accept all draw claims up to this point, then claim that this
>>claim was not made correctly, and then they penalize the _program_ for the
>>operator's mistake, when rules 5 and 6 explicitly spell out the duties of
>>the operator and the remedy when the operator fouls up.
>
>You are aware that the operator/programmer did *not* make a draw claim? He asked
>if it's ok to *continue,* after the GUI's repetition info (and after he had made
>the move).
>
>I share your opinion that it would better, when operators can, and should,
>remain passive, especially when decisions of that type have to be met (claim a
>repetition draw or not), but when currently it's not the exact, clear & written
>rule (?) that operators have to remain completely passive, but when they can
>decide if to claim or if to continue, then I think it was ok to allow the game
>to continue, in that case. - Although - I know - it actually wasn't allowed to
>continue in that sense, but a draw claim was refuted the operator did not want
>to claim :-) but in effect it's the same (more or less).
>
>(It's impossible to put that whole matter into one single sentence :-)) so all
>discussions about it were quite hopeless from the beginning.)
>
>I know that actually there was a misunderstanding about the claim, IOW there was
>none and the TD thought at first Zwanzger wants to claim it. I have already
>critizised that (too), because in the last round of a Championship, in a game
>where one of the leaders participated, and in a situation decisive for the
>title, such misunderstandings are hardly tolerable. These are 3 factors which
>require the highest precision each. - But OTOH, I think the decision itself was
>ok after all.
>
>IMO it would not have been ok to decide like that, when Zwanzger had really
>wanted to claim the draw, just because he had made the move already. That could
>have been tolerated then, and drawn. But in that case, I guess SMK could have
>protested against of course, when FIDE rule 9.2 is in power... At least that's
>my view so far. You know much more about these things.
>
>Btw. did you know that Zwanzger, during that same game earlier, had asked the TD
>if he was allowed to resign (when he had a very bad position already), but was
>asked to continue, according to his report at the CSS Forum?
>
>http://f23.parsimony.net/forum50826/messages/84889.htm
>(german)
>
>This was a mix of several bad circumstances to the worst moment, so inavoidably
>some sh** happened :-))
>
>Regards,
>Mike Scheidl
>
>
>P.S. Under such circumstances, it would not have been perfectly satisfying, when
>Fritz would have been tournament winner later, either. AFAIK Shredder had
>already announced mate (!) in the Jonny game, before the repetion bug occured.
>Both had 9.5/11, but Shredder's Buchholz, or tiebreak (?), rating was slightly
>better (by 0.5 only). Unfortunately, the title couldn't be awarded to both, as a
>"salomonic" decision to share the Championship for a few month. It wouldn't have
>been illogical IMO, after such a tight result and keeping the Jonny problem in
>mind...

Perhaps the events at Graz can be understood only in the context of the
individual agendas of the participants.

Some of the participants, especially the TD, would want to be able to say that
the event was "prestegious."  That would also serve the interests of the
tournament winner, because more money could be made.  My current impression is
that the event in truth was little more than a social gathering.

Sadly, humans are like two-sided coins.  They have a good side and a bad side.
Those who wear rose-tinted glasses all the time see only the good side.  Others
may see only the bad side.  No two people will see the Graz event exactly the
same way.

A word about rules:  Rules are adopted for good reasons.  It is those reasons
which are worthy and not the rules.  Rules are not sacred, even if "rules
worshippers" and "rules enforcers" wish it to be so.  Wishing it is so does not
make it so.  Rules, among other things, can stave off legal disputes.

The real question is:  "Who will participate in this event next year?"  If there
is a large event, then it will be evident that either people had no trouble with
the recent Graz events or they have found it in their hearts to forgive and
forget.  We will have to wait and see.

Bob D.



This page took 0 seconds to execute

Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700

Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.